User:DblRedirBot/approval archive

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Request for bot status: DblRedirBot

I formally request community approval of running "redirects.py" from the account User:DblRedirBot.

Purpose: Clean up double redirects (~4,000 or so) and periodically re-run.

Owner: User:Connel MacKenzie

Testing status: OK. (with and without throttling) Testing again to check User:Hippietrail's concerns. --Connel MacKenzie 07:30, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Now that the obvious redirects have been deleted, I plan to do another test soon, unless there are other objections. --Connel MacKenzie T + C # 22:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Recent tests (after deletion pass first) were much better. Requesting bot status. --Connel MacKenzie T C 18:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • 10 December 2005, 'bot flag set for account. --Connel MacKenzie T C 21:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


Votes for:

  • --Connel MacKenzie 02:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Fine with me Polyglot 20:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Just make sure it works. Somebody has been running a bot to fix redirects lately that changed things but fixed nothing on the pages that I saw at least. — Hippietrail 23:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Jon Harald Søby 07:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I see what Ncik is saying, that in some instances there are valid reasons for rebuilding the middle link in the redirect chain into a full entry, or more likely a small entry which refers to the stem but has some separate content of it's own. However each time a user types in a double redirect page they are left with an almost blank page & a bad user experience. We are as yet only 1% of the way to creating an entry for each of the 9 million unique "words"/"lexemes" found in the Gutenberg project so making some improvement automatically on the double redirects instead of spending time fixing them manually is a good thing. Perhaps giving us time to put in the separate entries. How about a special page for single re-directs (as there will no-longer be double ones) so they can be reviewed and people can perhaps put in the separate content? I've gone on enough. for MGSpiller 23:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Votes against:

  • The bot has 'fixed' two double redirects from my watchlist: One was Brains -> brains -> brain, the other one Baldric -> baldric -> baldrick. We might want to split off noun defn 4 from brain, and also add the third person singular of to brain to brains. The spelling variant baldric of baldrick definitely deserves its own page, as all other spelling variants do. In both cases the bot has produced additional work for editors embarking on implementing the aforementioned improvements by forcing them to change the redirects back to their previous targets. I don't think it is asked too much of Wiktionary users who somehow managed to end up on the page of a misspelling (I still think these pages shouldn't exist in the first place, and the problem wouldn't exist) to perform an additional click. Ncik 19:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments

So, why are the misspellings on your watchlist? Did you enter them incorrectly in the first place? Of relevant note: brains and Brains are probably currently on a separate cleanup list; Baldric/baldric should be there also.
Furthermore, correcting a double redirect did not cause any of the problems you indicate...since they appear on your watchlist, I can only assume you had some involvement in them being "broken" to begin with. As usual, I expect your character assassination and wild misrepresentations (this time against a Wikipedia 'bot!) to go unpunished, lucky you. --Connel MacKenzie 03:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Responsible for the existence of these entries and them being on my watchlist is the now abolished first letter capitalizsation policy. In both cases the redirects were set up after deleting existent content last edited by myself. But I often have not enough time to check all the changes that show up on my watchlist.
Redirects are bad, always. So the bot should have to be there in the first place. However, how else do double redirects arise, and is there any point in shortcutting them? Ncik 23:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
(re-indented previous paragraph.)
Blanket statements such as "Redirects are bad, always." ignores reality. Certainly for idioms they have proven useful. There are about 3,000 double redirects that still need correction. As discussed, I'll certainly give higher priority to first deleting incorrect redirects before testing any further. By then I do hope the bot has finished the approval process so the corrections don't clog Recent changes. (ReDirBot corrections will still appear on your watchlist, but deletions will not.) --Connel MacKenzie 05:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

wikt:en:User:DblRedirBot

Thank you. --Connel MacKenzie 18:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Done--Shizhao 16:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=User:DblRedirBot/approval_archive&oldid=29603826"